Civics Lesson 101: The War on Poverty

[JFK_USA]

What about poor parents that can't get an abortion or birth control? People aren't going to stop having sex because they are poor. Thats just an absurd thought. For these people that want government out of their lives sure like to make government get into other people's lifes.

Nothing they do is any of your business. But I did find it funny that the rate of poverty decreased under democratic presidents and rose with republicans.

 

[JakeStarkey]

What about poor parents that can't get an abortion or birth control? People aren't going to stop having sex because they are poor. Thats just an absurd thought. For these people that want government out of their lives sure like to make government get into other people's lifes.

Nothing they do is any of your business. But I did find it funny that the rate of poverty decreased under democratic presidents and rose with republicans.

I am not worried about your stats: they are true.

I am concerned about millions of kids who need help now.

 

[Samson]

What about poor parents that can't get an abortion or birth control? People aren't going to stop having sex because they are poor. Thats just an absurd thought. For these people that want government out of their lives sure like to make government get into other people's lifes.

Nothing they do is any of your business. But I did find it funny that the rate of poverty decreased under democratic presidents and rose with republicans.

I am not worried about your stats: they are true.

I am concerned about millions of kids who need help now.

How many would you like?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Samson, you are responsible for your own crew. Nice try.

 

[Samson]

Samson, you are responsible for your own crew. Nice try.

damn it.

 

[Foxfyre]

Lets just keep the federal government out of the foster care programs AND the orphanage business and put these at the local level. That will prevent a multitude of sins and promote the most efficient and effective environment for the children.

Any foster parent who is making much if any money taking in the kids, is likely not providing what those kids need. And yes, the authorities who place those kids do have a responsibility to ensure that they are being taken care of. I know a LOT of foster parents and they ALL are expending their own money in addition to the modest stipends they receive in order to properly take care of their young charges.

Is there any evidence the feds want to get into the foster care business?

They already are. Each state gets a sizable grant from the federal government for foster care programs. I haven't looked at it in some time since I haven't been directly involved for several years but like six or seven years ago I'm thinking the federal grant ranged from something up to $30,000 or so per foster child. Of course the folks taking in the foster kids didn't get a whole lot of that - I think the average in most states would be about $400 or so for little ones; probably a bit more for older kids so how much of the money is eaten up in federal, state, and local bureaucracies is anybody's guess.

I can't remember the title numbers but they are tied to the Social Security administration.

 

[chanel]

It's $800 a month for teenagers here in NJ; and up to $1400 if the child is handicapped Every time they move they get an additional $600 for clothing and school supplies. Each child is given a case worker and an advocate. If they require more specialists, they can have four or five adults managing their case. It's very expensive; and very attractive to sleazy people who need the money. The social workers are not well paid, but imagine if the feds took over?

 

[bucs90]

If you keep leaving food at the door step..........the dog never learns to hunt.

 

[bucs90]

And yes, I just compared poor people to animals. Get over it.

 

[chanel]

Outstanding essay on teen pregnancy and the cycle of poverty.

Here’s my prediction: the money, the reforms, the gleaming porcelain, the hopeful rhetoric about saving our children—all of it will have a limited impact, at best, on most city schoolchildren. Urban teachers face an intractable problem, one that we cannot spend or even teach our way out of: teen pregnancy. This year, all of my favorite girls are pregnant, four in all, future unwed mothers every one. There will be no innovation in this quarter, no race to the top. Personal moral accountability is the electrified rail that no politician wants to touch.

Within my lifetime, single parenthood has been transformed from shame to saintliness. In our society, perversely, we celebrate the unwed mother as a heroic figure, like a fireman or a police officer. During the last presidential election, much was made of Obama’s mother, who was a single parent. Movie stars and pop singers flaunt their daddy-less babies like fishing trophies.

None of this is lost on my students. In today’s urban high school, there is no shame or social ostracism when girls become pregnant

"Nobody Gets Married Any More, Mister" by Gerry Garibaldi - City Journal

 

[bucs90]

Great post.

We do in fact glorify unwed teen moms more than cops and firemen. Just watch MTV. Unwed teen moms, pothead rebellious teens partaking in any illegal activity they can find....thats glorified more than being a cop or fireman or soldier. Or teacher. Or preacher. Or ANYTHING that involves personal morality.

Morality today is the new scarlet letter.

 

[editec]

So it's like I said the other day, the greater the gap between rich and poor in a society, the better that society is functioning,

from the conservative, laissez-faire, market based perspective.

That is not what Franklin was saying. What he was saying is that people will not typically endeavor to get out of poverty while they are comfortable in it. Hey... you think there's a correlation between the unemployment rate and never ending unemployment checks?

If the gap between rich and poor isn't large, it means that the poor are being artificially propped up economically. That is anathema to conservatives.

If the gap between the workers and the bosses is too large, it means the bosses are being propped up by the thugs who rigged the game.

This is the beginning of the end pf that society's affluence and probably its survival, too.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And yes, I just compared poor people to animals. Get over it.

You are projecting yourself.

 

[FifthColumn]

Lets just keep the federal government out of the foster care programs AND the orphanage business and put these at the local level. That will prevent a multitude of sins and promote the most efficient and effective environment for the children.

Any foster parent who is making much if any money taking in the kids, is likely not providing what those kids need. And yes, the authorities who place those kids do have a responsibility to ensure that they are being taken care of. I know a LOT of foster parents and they ALL are expending their own money in addition to the modest stipends they receive in order to properly take care of their young charges.

Is there any evidence the feds want to get into the foster care business?

Are the American taxpayers, who pay the bill for educating, feeding, clothing, and doctoring, illegal immigrant children considered "foster parents"?

 

[midcan5]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/race-relations-racism/151359-culture-versus-reality.html

I think a large answer is in the link above. But when we look at poverty from the great depression till now, government has done some great work, and if you are religious, it has done good work for all humans. Those who criticize LBJ do so only from ideological and partisan non-thought, LBJ accomplished more than any ideologue who assumes all that is needed is social Darwinism or some other formulaic idea and all is well. Put up or shut up should be the rule, prior to the modern welfare state people starved. You only have to look at third world nations to see that is still true. Ever wonder why the poor come to America, they come both for opportunity and for a world that is better, more humane than the one they left.


"The insight that equality of conditions is a precondition for democracy has a long and often forgotten tradition in the study of politics. It was apparent to most classical political thinkers that democracy could not survive without some equality among its citizens. Aristotle, who spent a substantial amount of time collecting all the constitutions of the Greek cities, concluded that to be successful, a city "ought to be composed, as far as possible, of equals and similars." By contrast, he noticed, a state could not be well-governed where there were only very rich and very poor people because the former "could only rule despotically" and the latter "know not how to command and must be ruled like slaves."" by Carles Boix The Roots of Democracy | Hoover Institution

 

[Foxfyre]

Midcans I know you believe that and I respect your beliefs.

But I have worked with the hardcore poor, provided services for them, and seen up close and personal the legacy of the so-called "War on Poverty". And while we can find anecdotal evidence for good things being done, there is overwhelming evidence, at least to me, that the unintended consequences greatly outweigh the anecdotal good. I have read the opinions of those who think as the author in your link. And I have read the conclusions of others who have lived it and spent a lifetime researching and studying it.

You can find good coming out of almost anything if you look for it. But to ignore the negative consequences and holding up that 'good' as sacrosanct just isn't the way to approach any problem.

The federal government should not be in the business of charity but should be promoting that at the state and local levels. We would be far more likely to do much better work in dealing with poverty if that would happen.

 

[Samson]

Lets just keep the federal government out of the foster care programs AND the orphanage business and put these at the local level. That will prevent a multitude of sins and promote the most efficient and effective environment for the children.

Any foster parent who is making much if any money taking in the kids, is likely not providing what those kids need. And yes, the authorities who place those kids do have a responsibility to ensure that they are being taken care of. I know a LOT of foster parents and they ALL are expending their own money in addition to the modest stipends they receive in order to properly take care of their young charges.

Is there any evidence the feds want to get into the foster care business?

They already are. Each state gets a sizable grant from the federal government for foster care programs. I haven't looked at it in some time since I haven't been directly involved for several years but like six or seven years ago I'm thinking the federal grant ranged from something up to $30,000 or so per foster child. Of course the folks taking in the foster kids didn't get a whole lot of that - I think the average in most states would be about $400 or so for little ones; probably a bit more for older kids so how much of the money is eaten up in federal, state, and local bureaucracies is anybody's guess.

I can't remember the title numbers but they are tied to the Social Security administration.

So the feds finance the programs administered by the state.

To me this is a far cry from the feds being into "the foster care programs AND the orphanage business." It's like saying the Bank of America is into the business of cleaning clothes because they finance a laundry.

 

[Foxfyre]

Is there any evidence the feds want to get into the foster care business?

They already are. Each state gets a sizable grant from the federal government for foster care programs. I haven't looked at it in some time since I haven't been directly involved for several years but like six or seven years ago I'm thinking the federal grant ranged from something up to $30,000 or so per foster child. Of course the folks taking in the foster kids didn't get a whole lot of that - I think the average in most states would be about $400 or so for little ones; probably a bit more for older kids so how much of the money is eaten up in federal, state, and local bureaucracies is anybody's guess.

I can't remember the title numbers but they are tied to the Social Security administration.

So the feds finance the programs administered by the state.

To me this is a far cry from the feds being into "the foster care programs AND the orphanage business." It's like saying the Bank of America is into the business of cleaning clothes because they finance a laundry.

Possibly. But I'm guessing those federal grants come with a lot of mandates, restrictions, and bureaucratic oversight.

 

[JamesMorrison]

They already are. Each state gets a sizable grant from the federal government for foster care programs. I haven't looked at it in some time since I haven't been directly involved for several years but like six or seven years ago I'm thinking the federal grant ranged from something up to $30,000 or so per foster child. Of course the folks taking in the foster kids didn't get a whole lot of that - I think the average in most states would be about $400 or so for little ones; probably a bit more for older kids so how much of the money is eaten up in federal, state, and local bureaucracies is anybody's guess.

I can't remember the title numbers but they are tied to the Social Security administration.

So the feds finance the programs administered by the state.

To me this is a far cry from the feds being into "the foster care programs AND the orphanage business." It's like saying the Bank of America is into the business of cleaning clothes because they finance a laundry.

Possibly. But I'm guessing those federal grants come with a lot of mandates, restrictions, and bureaucratic oversight.

Yes, some JM redux:

Wikipedia recognizes that: "The dominant role of the federal government in road finance has enabled it to pass laws in areas outside of the powers enumerated in the federal Constitution. By threatening to withhold highway funds, the federal government has been able to force state legislatures to pass a variety of laws”

Of course, some laws passed this way like seat belt and minimum drinking age laws are beneficial but many infringe upon states authority to set their own laws that might better apply locally. The federal mandate for a 55mph speed limit was bad law because it made perfectly law abiding citizens lawbreakers overnight. Many times when the dollars come back from the feds they come with mandates meant to help special interests. Federal mandates for highway fund usage often specify that a 'prevailing wage' (union wages) be paid thereby raising cost and eating up as much as 80 percent of the received federal funds. ( The Road to Privatization: Let States Take Charge of Highway Dollars [Mackinac Center] )
Further, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood was recently making noises about how he would like to ban all cell phone use in cars, even 'hands free' units! Fed education funds could be denied, via the Solomon Amendment, to those Universities that deny ROTC access on their campus. The list goes on and on.

JM

 

[MaggieMae]

So the feds finance the programs administered by the state.

To me this is a far cry from the feds being into "the foster care programs AND the orphanage business." It's like saying the Bank of America is into the business of cleaning clothes because they finance a laundry.

Possibly. But I'm guessing those federal grants come with a lot of mandates, restrictions, and bureaucratic oversight.

Yes, some JM redux:

Wikipedia recognizes that: "The dominant role of the federal government in road finance has enabled it to pass laws in areas outside of the powers enumerated in the federal Constitution. By threatening to withhold highway funds, the federal government has been able to force state legislatures to pass a variety of laws”

Of course, some laws passed this way like seat belt and minimum drinking age laws are beneficial but many infringe upon states authority to set their own laws that might better apply locally. The federal mandate for a 55mph speed limit was bad law because it made perfectly law abiding citizens lawbreakers overnight. Many times when the dollars come back from the feds they come with mandates meant to help special interests. Federal mandates for highway fund usage often specify that a 'prevailing wage' (union wages) be paid thereby raising cost and eating up as much as 80 percent of the received federal funds. ( The Road to Privatization: Let States Take Charge of Highway Dollars [Mackinac Center] )
Further, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood was recently making noises about how he would like to ban all cell phone use in cars, even 'hands free' units! Fed education funds could be denied, via the Solomon Amendment, to those Universities that deny ROTC access on their campus. The list goes on and on.

JM

Republicans have tried for years to overturn the Davis Bacon Act, ironically, sponsored by Republicans in 1931, which will never happen. Even it's temporary suspension has caused all kinds of protest from potential workers being shut out and "most-favored" contractors thereby allowed to do the hiring at low wages.

Davis?Bacon Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I remember when the 55 mph law took place and Johnny Carson objecting to it using the same excuses you have. But I also remember him apologizing because he actually timed how long it took for him to drive from his home in Malibu to Burbank at 65 mph, then the following day at 55 mph, and the difference was an extra three minutes. Carson said he thought he could live with that, and thereafter everyone else settled in also. States are extremely lax in ticketing anyone doing 60 or even 70 on straightaways.

As for cell phone use while driving, for Heaven's sake, we managed to cause enough accidents BEFORE it was cool to talk/text while driving, or even get into a hands-free phone conversation with anyone.